Sent in this 1868-S $20 Lib for conservation.
Clackamas1
Posts: 1,412 ✭✭✭✭✭
I bought this coin recently, fairly cheap for what it is and it was a coin that seem to be at auction several times in the past couple of years. It is a POP 3/0 62+1868-S $20 Lib. It is rather ugly but it is rare and you take what you can get. I believe it is a recent coin, e.g. a Fairmont, I can't find it to have shown up before the last couple of years. It has grease all over it and no one touched it when it came out of the bags. I vacillated on weather or not to mess with it but it sits right next to my MS62 1868 which is a stunner and it bothers me so I sent it in and it arrived today. What are your thoughts on doing this a gold coin?
Here is my MS62 1868 that it is next to so you can see why the 62+ with grease bothers me.
5
Comments
Where are you seeing grease in the top photo?
Basically all the black, cheek, neck, stars, hair and it has a general coating of it. When you see it in hand it looks worse than the photo. My guess is it was in a greasy bag at one point, like some guy in a machine shop had it in his pocket.
before shot?
That is the before shot. It arrived today so I don't even know if they will do anything at this point. We will see.
It looks like an original coin with the usual Euro dirt. It doesn't bother me in the least and you'd be crazy to mess with it. Just my opinion.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I'm surprised your 'P' mint is only a 62 !
That would be a hard NO.
Take a victory lap that you were able to obtain the coin at a favorable price. Enjoy the coin for what it is and is not. Rarely does No Motto gold show up with this look. If you really don’t like it, then just sell it. The problem is that spot gold is so high that the premium for better coins has basically evaporated.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Sounds like the move you were intending to make was send both coins to cac now in order to gold sticker the ms62 coin, and then do the conservation on the 62+ coin.
Might have been a 6-figure sticker
A different look to it yes. Either way I'd be happy with it 👍
Personally, it does not bother me. It looks like a really nice original gold coin with dirt on it. I would keep it as is but understand why some may want it conserved.
Collector
87 Positive BST transactions buying and selling with 53 members and counting!
instagram.com/klnumismatics
Agree with others, I would not mess with it. You may not like the result if it results in a "dipped and stripped" look unlike your 1868. Or worse could result in an "AU-62" coin once it is stripped that would never sticker.
Clackamas1,
Based on your comments (which cause me to believe that you'd rather look at gold than surface contaminants when viewing your coins) and my experiences with PCGS Conservation, I expect you'll be happy with the results.
Of course, PCGS would not dip a coin like this in acid or do anything to cause a direct change to the metal. They will simply remove the undesirable surface contaminants like the dirt you noticed and some of the finger grease residue on the coin.
As you probably know, the reason coins straight grade after conservation is because there are no direct changes made to the metal which would cause a problem when it's re-graded afterwards. This confuses many collectors.
It is the personal preference of many collectors to not conserve a coin like this but it's your coin and if you're bothered by the surface contaminants on your coin and don't mind the 3% conservation fee and re-grading fees, then I believe you made the right decision.
Please come back in a couple weeks with pics (TV and your own) and your thoughts on the results.
P.S. I own a 1868-S MS62 PCGS/CAC which did not have a sticker when I bought it. I conserved it myself and it got the CAC afterwards. If conserved coins are good enough for CAC, then they're good enough for me.
Both have been to CAC. The 62 is a green CAC and the 62+ did not CAC. The 62 is also at PCGS at the same time for reconsideration. I really think it should be a 63. It came out of an old CAC NGC holder that I crossed @62. This was before the fairmont coins and some of the 62's that have come from that hoard and beened certainly make for this coin to stand out better than a 62. The 68-S 62+ has the nicest strike of the three 62+'s. Many of the MS coins for this date have a reverse that looks like it was struck with a grease filled die. The Hansen coin is a clear example of it. It may as well be XF on the reverse. You can look up the other two on coinfacts to see what they look like.
It is the personal preference of many collectors not to have grease and marks on their coins too. I believe in general, collectors pay more for "pretty coins" than ugly ones. Not saying the original is ugly, just using comparative terms.
I recently had this MS62 Morgan conserved and I'm thrilled with the results. I also believe I was able to buy it slightly cheaper because it was "ugly." I was OK with the golden slight golden toning but the black marks were distracting. I am waiting for the TV to post. BTW, I know the form says 3% GP, but they only charged 1%.
http://ProofCollection.Net
I hope they don't do anything with it.
I've never quite understood the vibe that a brighter coin is better than an original one, and FWIW, I vastly prefer the 1868-S over the 1868.
Conservation doesn't always go right too. The Norweb MS67 1893-S comes to mind.
Agreed. For a different type of example, I strongly dislike the SSCA 57-S $20s (although of course they had more issues than a little dirt or some toning). Aesthetically, they just look very processed to me despite being nice technically.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
I sent some off for conservation this past week, my note says “only remove pvc/haze with hot water or mild solvents. DO NOT ALTER COLOR.”
They have gorgeous patinas but it looks like there’s light pvc or something and I want to make sure it’s not active and I don’t like the look of it. I would have felt more comfortable doing it myself, but considering that some are CAC Andrew/or higher dollar , I’d rather have PCGS make the call so I don’t have to go through any nonsense after.
I like the 68 better than the 68s, and I think the 68 is a solid 62+. That said, I’d like it just as much with a bit of grime, I just think the 68-s is a bit dull and doesn’t have the same amount of “pop” that 68 has in hand.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
The gold holder SSCA coins have grown on me, some of them have rich orange toning. Now the Bob Evans “pinch of gold” ssca Coins seem to be extra processed and more lifeless, but I like many of the gold foil coins when they’re not devoid of any color.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I agree, the 1857-S $20s can come very nice if you wait for a good one. Something like this perhaps:
I guess I painted with too broad of a brush. I'll amend my comment to many (or most) of the SSCA coins appear too processed for my taste.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
ase come back in a couple weeks with pics (TV and your own) and your thoughts on the results.
Which reverse does your have? The softer strike or the> @lermish said:
Is this too processed? This is one of those pinch of Gold SSCA's. It is a green CAC
